/sci/ - Science & Math

This is actually a legitimate point. I feel the same way as a man of faith and science.

>>1582541

>Religion has helped foster mankind's thoughtfulness, self awareness, etc.

Exactly

And I would say your're a fucking retard for comparing science and religion. One represents a procedure for generating knowledge (justified true belief) that has been confirmed as successful a thousand times over. The other generates bullshit that in the words of the great Wolfgang Pauli is not-even-wrong. The ONLY way one can subscribe to religion without being a complete retard is by treating their propositions as expressive of a way of live, emotion etc: The Wittgensteinian Conception of religion. That means when you say "There is a god", that sentence doesn't even have a true value, instead you intent convey some sort of bullshit with it. Needless to say, no morals whatsoever may be derived from such religious doctrines, then.

>Both science and religion have made horrendous mistakes and monumental advances, all while pursuing the same thing. Science and religion are glorified synonyms for human curiosity, and we're all in this endeavor together, regardless of our means.

This is where I disagree. Religion today does not pursue the same thing as science, and is not "curious" in the least.

>>1582541
>believer of science

>>1582586

Meanwhile, in Gaza...

>>1582594

Wrong - if you know anything about even Christian mysticism, you will know that it's *very* curious. I am a skeptical agnostic at most btw.

>>1582601

>>1582602
Not curious about reality. If they truly were, they'd use methods that, I don't know, are reliable?

>>1582602

Too bad it's all wild speculation with no basis in fact.

Wow, this is a MUCH better troll than that other evolution thread.

6/10

Although we have little truly scientific OC on /sci/ we do keep it legitimately scientific by calling out philosophy-fags.

For your courage, this medal.

>>1582594
I and the other religious people I know are extremely curious. I'm an avid reader of all manner of religious texts, and I combine religion with the scientific tools available to understand more about the historic and anthropological background of religious movements and mythologies. In fact, I'd say the most curious people I know are religious.

I have the most respect for people with both curiosity and intellectual honesty. There are not many people who fit that description but those who do are often religious.

Hello, thank you for your replies. I do not mean to start a war, but if only you would help me understand I'd be thankful.

Here is what you have made me think:

In the pursuit of both religion and science we confront our limitations.

Even a scientific man must deduce that there are things he simply can not know. He can not see the smallest forms of matter. He can not see the entire universe at once. He can not see his future, or what happened before his birth or after his death.

Do believers of science think that eventually we will be able to understand all of these things? Surely they are not using their reason. For we are humans and humans are simply too small to see the entire universe and too large to see the smallest things. We are too limited in our scope...

So why would we say one or the other, when it is clear how small our field of perception is?

This unknown variable will perpetually exist. I cannot understand why a scientific method is more conducive than a religious method in explaining that which by definition cannot be explained.

Very sorry for any ignorance unwittingly on display at the moment.

>>1582541
You assume too much and no very little of what you're talking about. For one thing, religion and science aren't complementary at all. Science is a method of testing and discovery while religion is indoctrination that is rigid belief system that doesn't do anything to try to figure out the truth, instead religion suppress any kind of factual information that doesn't fit its stupid views.

>>1582594
Religion never perused the same thing as science.

>>1582648
Who told you that's what religion is? You are misinformed.

Stop trying to justify your religious beliefs by comparing them to science. They are absolutely nothing alike.

Pick one. Choose wisely.

>saw the word religion

>stopped reading

>>1582669

>> Implying you can't be religious and be a scientist

>>1582662
FYI I went to Catholic school so I got a chance to see the bullshit upfront and personal.
But seeing as you feel that I'm misinformed I dare you to enlighten me?

>>1582678
Not really, anon simply stated that there is a obvious distinction between science and religion.

>>1582669
My friend I am not religious in any way. I merely think about these subjects and have found myself wondering at the great divide between approaches to the same question.

>>1582710
Isn't the reason why there is a divide painfully obvious?

>>1582719
No, it is what I fail to see, and what I am looking for. Why are they mutually exclusive?

>>1582721
Science is a method by which a hypothesis is tested to explain natural phenomena. It is fact based because to postulate a theory there is requirement for evidence.

Religion unlike science doesn't require evidence at all, it requires faith in the absence of evidence. It isn't a method of testing but a rigid belief system that continues to be rigid in spite of contradictory evidence. It is basically make-believe.

>>1582710
It isn't the same question. Please write down the typical questions so we can locate the source of your misunderstanding.

>>1582848
You make it sound as though its a tumor. This is far worse, perhaps even untreatable.

>>1582662

I'm religious, but I think you're the misinformed one.